Oh come on about Mexico! The Texans didn't like being ruled by Mexico and went indy just like we did with Great Britain. Later indy Texas wanted to be part of the US.

BucEyedPea

03-01-2008, 10:03 AM

Do you take requests?

Post the one about Europeans taking over the North American continent next.
Well what was right about some of that?
Were those Indians promised their independence on their own land if they helped a European power fight another outside empire that was ruling them?

I don't think so. The ME conflict as created primarily by Great Britain ( and somewhat by France but less so) making two sets of promises to two different groups of people: indigenous Arabs and European Jews. (there were already sephardic jews living there peacefully with the Arabs). After WWII GB's empire was bankrupt and we inherited the position.

Adept Havelock

03-01-2008, 10:37 AM

It's hard to be sympathetic to people who attack a country, send suicide bombers against a country....and then whine when they get their ass kicked and their land taken from them.

Karma, baby. ;)

Yeah, like the Haganah Underground and what other Jewish terror groups did to the British? The Stern gang, the assassination of Lord Moyne...bombing innocents in train stations, hotels, restaurants, and clubs? The Irgun and Lehi terror groups? Kidnapping and murdering folks just because they were British Nationals?

I suppose you are right. I guess it qualifies as Karma.

I guess that's one reason I often have a tough time finding sympathy for the state of Israel. :shrug:

Obviously, I'm not saying that the Palestinians get a pass for this. I'm just saying that the proto-Isreali state had no problem using similar tactics when it benefited them against the British.

I'm surprised you left that out of your post, Kotter. I figured as a historian you would be aware of the role terrorism against the British played in the founding of modern Israel. ;)

Mr. Kotter

03-01-2008, 10:49 AM

You mean like the Haganah Underground and other terror groups did to the British? The Stern gang, the assassination of Lord Moyne...Bombing innocents in train stations, hotels, restaurants, and clubs? The Irgun and Lehi terror groups? Kidnapping and murdering folks just because they were British Nationals?

I suppose you are right. That certainly qualifies as Karma, now that I think about it.

One could certainly say so. FWIW, I wouldn't have been sympathetic to Jewish terrorist activities against the British either though.

I guess the difference I see in the more ongoing current confrontations, is one side has conceded (at various times) to seeking peaceful coexistence....while the other is by their own words committed to the destruction of the other.

:shrug:

Cochise

03-01-2008, 10:55 AM

They should have made that graphic go back through recorded history instead of the last 50 years.

pikesome

03-01-2008, 11:00 AM

Well what was right about some of that?
Were those Indians promised their independence on their own land if they helped a European power fight another outside empire that was ruling them?

I don't think so. The ME conflict as created primarily by Great Britain ( and somewhat by France but less so) making two sets of promises to two different groups of people: indigenous Arabs and European Jews. (there were already sephardic jews living there peacefully with the Arabs). After WWII GB's empire was bankrupt and we inherited the position.

GB was offering an hour alone with the Queen Mother if people would fight for them in WWI.

pikesome

03-01-2008, 11:07 AM

They should have made that graphic go back through recorded history instead of the last 50 years.

I'm not sure the Jews would win that comparison either.

Doesn't really matter, "who got there first" quit working in elementary school and the suicide bombings do quite a bit to remove sympathy. Oh yea, and flying airliners full of people in to skyscrapers.

Adept Havelock

03-01-2008, 01:07 PM

They should have made that graphic go back through recorded history instead of the last 50 years.

True. Showing how it had been Palestinian/Arab/Muslim land for approx. 2000 years following the destruction of the second temple and the diaspora (With the exception of a few brief periods during the crusades, of course) would lend some historical perspective.

As would the several thousand years preceeding when that area was claimed and fought over by multiple powers.

I suppose some mention should also be made of the Jewish claim that some mystical figure gave them perpetual title to the whole area, though I don't believe anyone has presented a legal deed showing this to be true. :shrug:

Doesn't really matter, "who got there first" quit working in elementary school and the suicide bombings do quite a bit to remove sympathy. Oh yea, and flying airliners full of people in to skyscrapers.

Indeed.

GB was offering an hour alone with the Queen Mother if people would fight for them in WWI.

LMAO

I guess the difference I see in the more ongoing current confrontations, is one side has conceded (at various times) to seeking peaceful coexistence....while the other is by their own words committed to the destruction of the other.

:shrug:

If you consider "live only where we say you can, even though your historical claim to the land is at least as good as ours" seeking peaceful coexistence, I suppose you are correct.

I certainly agree your latter point doesn't help the Palestinians make their case.

patteeu

03-01-2008, 01:34 PM

So where did the picture come from and what is it really telling us?

Adept Havelock

03-01-2008, 01:37 PM

So where did the picture come from and what is it really telling us?

Looks to me like it's telling us the Israelis, after achieving statehood by using terrorism, decided to ignore the Palestinians equal (at least) historical claim to the land. Then they started herding them onto increasingly shrinking reservations at gunpoint, much like the USA did to its native population.

I'm thinking that is one of the main reasons they are so angry with Israel. I certainly would be angry if that had happened to me, my property, and my family (as would most here in that situation I suspect), though I doubt I would stoop to the tactics they or proto-Israel use/used. Then again, I also doubt many of us can truly assess how we would respond if in the space of a generation or two, we were told we were now second-class citizens in a land suddenly not our own. Especially if we had no say in it. JMO. :shrug:

Oh, and the map seems to have come from funhostr.com, by way of jAZ. ;)

Mr. Kotter

03-01-2008, 01:38 PM

So where did the picture come from and what is it really telling us?

From the way the map turns from lush green to white, I'm thinking this is irrefutable evidence that Global Warming is a sham...and that Israel is entering a modern Ice Age.

:p

Adept Havelock

03-01-2008, 01:49 PM

From the way the map turns from lush green to white, I'm thinking this is irrefutable evidence that Global Warming is a sham...and that Israel is entering a modern Ice Age.

:p

:hmmm:

That would explain why the woman from Israel I was dating before the Old Lady and I got together was frigid! Thanks! :p

Logical

03-01-2008, 01:50 PM

Looks to me like it's telling us the Israelis, after achieving statehood by using terrorism, decided to ignore the Palestinians equal (at least) historical claim to the land. Then they started herding them onto increasingly shrinking reservations at gunpoint, much like the USA did to its native population.

I'm thinking that is one of the main reasons they are so angry with Israel. I certainly would be angry if that had happened to me, my property, and my family (as would most here in that situation I suspect), though I doubt I would stoop to the tactics they or proto-Israel use/used. I also doubt many of us can truly assess how we would respond if in the space of a generation or two, we were told we were now second-class citizens in a land suddenly not our own. Especially if we had no say in it. JMO. :shrug:

Oh, and the map seems to have come from funhostr.com, by way of jAZ. ;)

So then the only mistake Israel is making is by not turning the Palestinains on to casinos.:D

Adept Havelock

03-01-2008, 01:54 PM

So then the only mistake Israel is making is by not turning the Palestinains on to casinos.:D

LMAO

Well, that and they likely regret not giving out smallpox-laced blankets in the '40's, during their terrorist campaign against Great Britain.

Baby Lee

03-01-2008, 01:56 PM

So then the only mistake Israel is making is by not turning the Palestinains on to casinos.:D
Actually, we lucked out by taking land from a people who had no conception of real property.
Isreal's trying to forge a nation taking land from a people who can harbor multigenerational rage over the loss of their grandfather's favorite 3 fig trees.

patteeu

03-01-2008, 02:00 PM

Looks to me like it's telling us the Israelis, after achieving statehood by using terrorism, decided to ignore the Palestinians equal (at least) historical claim to the land. Then they started herding them onto increasingly shrinking reservations at gunpoint, much like the USA did to its native population.

I'm thinking that is one of the main reasons they are so angry with Israel. I certainly would be angry if that had happened to me, my property, and my family (as would most here in that situation I suspect), though I doubt I would stoop to the tactics they or proto-Israel use/used. Then again, I also doubt many of us can truly assess how we would respond if in the space of a generation or two, we were told we were now second-class citizens in a land suddenly not our own. Especially if we had no say in it. JMO. :shrug:

Oh, and the map seems to have come from funhostr.com, by way of jAZ. ;)

funhostr.com appears to be some kind of youtube for still pics. My question is what do the white and green areas really mean? Does it mean that jews live on the white area and only on the white area while arab muslims live only on the green or does it mean that anyone who lives on the white area gets to vote in Israeli elections and anyone who lives in a green area votes in palestinian elections or does it mean something completely different. :shrug:

Logical

03-01-2008, 02:04 PM

funhostr.com appears to be some kind of youtube for still pics. My question is what do the white and green areas really mean? Does it mean that jews live on the white area and only on the white area while arab muslims live only on the green or does it mean that anyone who lives on the white area gets to vote in Israeli elections and anyone who lives in a green area votes in palestinian elections or does it mean something completely different. :shrug:
First if you should know anything, in Israel the only people who can vote are Jewish. They allow Palestinians to vote in the walled off areas on Palestinaian issues.

Adept Havelock

03-01-2008, 02:12 PM

funhostr.com appears to be some kind of youtube for still pics. My question is what do the white and green areas really mean? Does it mean that jews live on the white area and only on the white area while arab muslims live only on the green or does it mean that anyone who lives on the white area gets to vote in Israeli elections and anyone who lives in a green area votes in palestinian elections or does it mean something completely different. :shrug:

I would suspect that as in most any nation where you have "castes" of citizenship, those on top can do as they please, while those on the bottom do as they are told.

patteeu

03-01-2008, 02:34 PM

First if you should know anything, in Israel the only people who can vote are Jewish. They allow Palestinians to vote in the walled off areas on Palestinaian issues.

I'm sure you're sincerely trying to be helpful here, but what would actually be helpful is if someone could address my question instead of my off the wall examples meant only to explain the question not to add to it.

Logical

03-01-2008, 02:39 PM

I'm sure you're sincerely trying to be helpful here, but what would actually be helpful is if someone could address my question instead of my off the wall examples meant only to explain the question not to add to it.

In that case the answer is just as obvious. The Jewish people control the white areas while the Palestinians are allowed within certain parameters to retain control of the Green areas. Glad to help.

patteeu

03-01-2008, 02:41 PM

I would suspect that as in most any nation where you have "castes" of citizenship, those on top can do as they please, while those on the bottom do as they are told.

The reason I ask this question is because I know that right now Jerusalem is, for all practical purposes, a divided city, but on the last picture, it shows Jerusalem as being well within the white region.

patteeu

03-01-2008, 02:42 PM

In that case the answer is just as obvious. The Jewish people control the white areas while the Palestinians are allowed within certain parameters to retain control of the Green areas. Glad to help.

I suspect your response to this map is exactly what it's creators hoped for. Now... could I get an answer from someone who actually knows or has a good guess?

Adept Havelock

03-01-2008, 02:54 PM

This is land the US took from Mexico. are they killing Americans or attacking our country over this?

The Israelis have been attacked non stop since 1948, now nobody ****s with them. so it makes sense if you ask me. the Palestinians will never be happy or be at peace until Israel is destroyed.

If you don't mind me asking, let us pretend the area where you live has decided to become a new nation-state. However, since you aren't of the new governments preferred faith/ethnicity, you are now told you are at best a second-class citizen, have no real authority in the government, and can only live and work in areas where the new government authorizes. Never mind the fact you and your family have lived and owned land in that area for generations. The UN has decreed that your land is now theirs.

How do you think you or your children would feel? How many years would pass before you or your descendants were OK with it?

I'm not defending their tactics by any means. I think they are vile. I'm simply saying it seems a very legitimate grievance, from my POV.

I suspect your response to this map is exactly what it's creators hoped for. Now... could I get an answer from someone who actually knows or has a good guess?

I suspect Jerusalem is colored that way because it is 1) A divided city on 2) a large-scale map. :shrug:

Much like Haifa, which is 4/5 Jewish, is colored Green. As to the meaning...if you are Jewish, you are free to live in some (exceptions- parts of the West Bank and the Gaza strip) Green or any White areas. If you are Palestinian, you must live in a "green" area. As for political control, Israeli law rule the White Zones, while Palestinians are permitted a limited self government within the green zones (Hamas on the Gaza Strip, Palestinian Authority on the West Bank).

As the Green in the last picture corresponds to the areas set aside by Israel as "reservations" for where Palestinians may live (namely areas within the "West Bank" and "Gaza Strip"), it seems quite logical to infer the previous pictures show a gradual shrinking of those areas over the time period noted on the maps.

Also, the lines in the 1947 picture conform to the UN partition plan in which those territories were to be part of an "Arab State". The disappearance of the Northern Area in 1949 would coincide with the Israeli annexation of the territory bordering Jordan, which would also support this interpretation of the white/green on the map.

As the first picture was set during the era the proto-Israeli state was engaging in terrorism against Great Britain, it also seems that the areas outright controlled in the "Mandate of Palestine" by the Jews under the UK were quite small. As I know little of British colonial practice in the Mandate of Palestine, I can't tell you if this was by choice of the Jews or by force from the ruling British. However, the campaign of terror by some Jewish groups against the British leads me to the opinion it was likely the latter.

As for who drew the map, you'll likely have to ask jAZ. I can't say I'm terribly concerned with it's origin, as it seems to be an accurate representation of the ever-shrinking territory that was to be set aside for the Palestinians in the UN partition of 1947 through 2000.

Here's another map that would support those interpretations of this one.

.

Logical

03-01-2008, 03:16 PM

Patteu I gave you the real reason I attribute to those maps. But here is the actual website and you can tell us what it means after you visit.

And, of course, there's the section on Jewish mind-control mechanisms.

Pure (Zionist) gold

patteeu

03-01-2008, 04:21 PM

I suspect Jerusalem is colored that way because it is 1) A divided city on 2) a large-scale map. :shrug:

Much like Haifa, which is 4/5 Jewish, is colored Green. As to the meaning...if you are Jewish, you are free to live in some (exceptions- parts of the West Bank and the Gaza strip) Green or any White areas. If you are Palestinian, you must live in a "green" area. As for political control, Israeli law rule the White Zones, while Palestinians are permitted a limited self government within the green zones (Hamas on the Gaza Strip, Palestinian Authority on the West Bank).

As the Green in the last picture corresponds to the areas set aside by Israel as "reservations" for where Palestinians may live (namely areas within the "West Bank" and "Gaza Strip"), it seems quite logical to infer the previous pictures show a gradual shrinking of those areas over the time period noted on the maps.

Also, the lines in the 1947 picture conform to the UN partition plan in which those territories were to be part of an "Arab State". The disappearance of the Northern Area in 1949 would coincide with the Israeli annexation of the territory bordering Jordan, which would also support this interpretation of the white/green on the map.

As the first picture was set during the era the proto-Israeli state was engaging in terrorism against Great Britain, it also seems that the areas outright controlled in the "Mandate of Palestine" by the Jews under the UK were quite small. As I know little of British colonial practice in the Mandate of Palestine, I can't tell you if this was by choice of the Jews or by force from the ruling British. However, the campaign of terror by some Jewish groups against the British leads me to the opinion it was likely the latter.

As for who drew the map, you'll likely have to ask jAZ. I can't say I'm terribly concerned with it's origin, as it seems to be an accurate representation of the ever-shrinking territory that was to be set aside for the Palestinians in the UN partition of 1947 through 2000.

Here's another map that would support those interpretations of this one.

.

I don't really have a problem with the first 3 maps. It's the 2000 map that I question. I also think that it's interesting that there is no map showing the state of affairs in the time period between 1968 and 1999.

I don't think the map you posted supports your interpretations (wrt the 2000 map) very well at all. First of all, the map you offered gives us no insight into today's situation, which, whether I made it apparent or not, is at the heart of my question. And to suggest that the reason Jerusalem appears to be in the white territory is because of the scale of the map you must be ignoring the fact that it is well within the white area not on the edge of it.

BucEyedPea

03-01-2008, 04:26 PM

They should have made that graphic go back through recorded history instead of the last 50 years.
Heh! I actually did that for about a week sometime after 9/11 out of sheer curiosity. I went right down through archealogy records.
Now I may have missed some years but it was about 50 years longer that the Arabs held the land under their control. You gotta figure the Ottomans ruled for a significant period of time. My conclusion was that both people have a right to live on that land.

I also think if a people have been gone for 1800 something years to think you can just take it back without a dispute then I have a bridge to sell ya'! Then factor in that some of them, Ashkenazi, ancestor's were never from there as they were later converts.

Adept Havelock

03-01-2008, 04:30 PM

I don't really have a problem with the first 3 maps. It's the 2000 map that I question. I also think that it's interesting that there is no map showing the state of affairs in the time period between 1968 and 1999.

Likely because very little changed with regard to borders following the Six Day War. :shrug:

I don't think the map you posted supports your interpretations (wrt the 2000 map) very well at all. First of all, the map you offered gives us no insight into today's situation, which, whether I made it apparent or not, is at the heart of my question.
Which, specifically, of my interpretations are you taking issue with? The fact that Palestenian and Jewish settlement and political control in the West Bank is restricted along the lines I described? If you have information showing that is not the case, please post it. I'd be curious to see it.

And to suggest that the reason Jerusalem appears to be in the white territory is because of the scale of the map you must be ignoring the fact that it is well within the white area not on the edge of it.

Could that be because the "divided" city is largely surrounded by "Israeli" territory? I believe that's been the case since 1967. Also it's status as officially "divided" is somewhat in question since Israel outright annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, and declared a United Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel in 1980.

Also, what I said about Haifa and Tel Aviv on the maps also applies to Jerusalem.

Here's another more recent one from the BBC which also supports my interpretation of political control regarding the most recent map. You'll also see that Jerusalem is largely surrounded by areas not subject to Palestinian control, which accounts for the other map.

Sorry if it might be a little more difficult for you to dismiss this map as mere anti-semitic propaganda, as you've attempted to do to the original map in the post following this one.

It's pretty simple. According to the terms of the Land-Grab that established Israel, the area in Green in the original map (or Brown in the one below) represent what should be a Palestinian state. The Green in the later maps (and below) represent the increasingly-shrinking areas Israel permits them to live in.

Are the Palestinians to blame for this state of affairs? Yes. As are the Israelis, IMO.

patteeu

03-01-2008, 04:37 PM

Patteu I gave you the real reason I attribute to those maps. But here is the actual website and you can tell us what it means after you visit.

Thanks for finding that site. It doesn't appear to be the original site, but it is the kind of site that I would have suspected to be behind this type of propaganda. I think it's pretty clear that the map is intended to cast Israel in the worst possible light, even if it has to mislead to do so. Of course, without really knowing what the map depicts, it's hard to know one way or the other whether it's meaning is benignly ambiguous, malignantly deceptive, or completely bogus.

That website is pretty crazy. Check out the top page (http://www.jewwatch.com/index.htm). "Seeking U.S. Independence from the Zionist AIPAC Yoke"

Maybe even crazier, the guy who runs JewWatch.com has a brother who runs a website called WatchingJewWatchNews.com. And they're from Missouri! Here's what the brother has to say on his About Me (http://watchingjewwatchnews.wordpress.com/about/) page:

My name is Joel Weiss formally Joe Weltner. As many of you are aware there is a tremendous problem on the Internet with hate site specifically Jewish hate sites ranking high in search rankings or the word Jew. One of these sites is run by my twin brother Frank Weltner under the name Jew Watch News. Frank and I grew up together in Missouri. We went to church every Sunday and took to the stories in the bible since we were little. As we grew up together Frank become insistent about his belief that Jews and Zionism were in complete control of the world. He began to do research claiming all the while he was trying to free America and the world and even the millions of innocent Jews from the clutches of the Jewish elite and the Zionists. As for myself I too became interested in the Jewish people and after many years of research and studying I became disenchanted with the teachings of the Gospels and became a passionate Bnei Noach. After the last few years of watching my brother Frank’s success on the Internet search engines I could no longer contain my fervor in defending the Jewish people and their rights to Zion the land duly given to them by the Creator of the Universe. My blog is dedicated to presenting the facts about the Jewish people and their historical and religious connections to Land of Israel.

patteeu

03-01-2008, 04:58 PM

Likely because very little changed with regard to borders following the Six Day War. :shrug:

Then why not label the final map 1967-2000? No, I don't think that's the likely reason. After 1967, either the entire west bank should be white or it should be green (depending on what you're trying to illustrate) at least for a few years. What it shouldn't be is the patchwork of about half green and half white that appears in the 2000 picture.

Which, specifically, of my interpretations are you taking issue with?

Could that be because the "divided" city is surrounded by "Israeli" territory? I believe that's been the case since 1967. Also it's status as officially "divided" is somewhat in question since Israel outright annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, and declared a United Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel in 1980.

Also, what I said about Haifa and Tel Aviv on the maps also applies to Jerusalem.

I'm taking issue with your explanation of the 2000 picture. Maybe you're right about Jerusalem, but this picture seems to show a substantial area of "Built-up Area (Palestinian)" where East Jerusalem is. There's not too much difference between this map and the one in the OP, but I think the story that the OP picture tells is quite misleading given that it is the Israelis who have been giving up land since 1967, not the Palestinians.

I think the story that the OP picture tells is quite misleading given that it is the Israelis who have been giving up land since 1967, not the Palestinians.

As I said, according to the terms of the Land-Grab that established Israel, the area in Green in the original '47 map (or Brown in the one below) represent what was set aside as a Palestinian state. The Green in the later maps (and below) represent the increasingly-shrinking areas Israel permits them to live in. Thus, I can't see Israel as the one making the sacrifice you claim they are, when it's the areas where Palestinians are permitted to settle that have been steadily shrinking since 1947.

I'm taking issue with your explanation of the 2000 picture.

I'd suggest this confirms my interpretation of it, in case you missed the edit of my previous post. ;)

Courtesy of the BBC:

.

noa

03-01-2008, 05:09 PM

My conclusion was that both people have a right to live on that land.

I think that's really the point we need to focus on. Sometimes I think people waste too much energy fighting over history rather than working on solutions, and that solutions people advocate are not reasonable at all.

Adept Havelock

03-01-2008, 05:15 PM

I think that's really the point we need to focus on. Sometimes I think people waste too much energy fighting over history rather than working on solutions, and that solutions people advocate are not reasonable at all.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, I think many folks on either side are not willing to set aside their grudges.

BucEyedPea

03-01-2008, 05:55 PM

I agree wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, I think many folks on either side are not willing to set aside their grudges.
Yup! It's not promoted much but there are extremists on the Israeli side that want all of the land for one Israel as well as Arabs who want all the land and no Israel. There are actually more in between these two positions, even amongst Israelis.

Jenson71

03-01-2008, 06:55 PM

There's a really great documentary called "Promises" about Jewish and Palestinian kids in the region. Check it out.

jAZ

03-01-2008, 07:25 PM

I think that's really the point we need to focus on. Sometimes I think people waste too much energy fighting over history rather than working on solutions, and that solutions people advocate are not reasonable at all.

That's reasonable to you and I, but we live in a nation where our citizens have 300 years of ancestral history. Since their family has a history of living on that land for 5000 years, I'm sure it's at least a little hard for us to relate to the urgency of that.

As an aside, I wonder how much of the struggle for land is not only about history and homelands, but also about the influence of real estate developers.

BucEyedPea

03-01-2008, 08:25 PM

There's a really great documentary called "Promises" about Jewish and Palestinian kids in the region. Check it out.

There's a camp near my brother's home in Maine and iirc it was named that.
The had Palestinian and Israeli kids there together in summers.

My mom would say, then they go home and kill one another.

patteeu

03-02-2008, 12:46 PM

As I said, according to the terms of the Land-Grab that established Israel, the area in Green in the original '47 map (or Brown in the one below) represent what was set aside as a Palestinian state. The Green in the later maps (and below) represent the increasingly-shrinking areas Israel permits them to live in. Thus, I can't see Israel as the one making the sacrifice you claim they are, when it's the areas where Palestinians are permitted to settle that have been steadily shrinking since 1947.

The map you posted doesn't support what you say. Maybe you're right that palestinians are not allowed to even live in the white areas and maybe you're not (I'm no Israel expert and I don't know), but that's not what the map says it's about. The map is based on zones of control. It appears that the 2000 map in the OP is probably based on the same thing. I'd like to see a map of palestinian autonomous regions from 1970 or 1975. Something tells me that there wouldn't be much green on those at all. And if my suspicion is correct, it ruins the illusion that palestinian territories (defined by who is actually in control of the land) have been steadily shrinking since 1947.

Adept Havelock

03-02-2008, 12:49 PM

I'd like to see a map of Palestinian autonomous regions from 1970 or 1975. Something tells me that there wouldn't be much green on those at all.

Well, if you want to see it, go find it. I feel I've made my point, and feel no obligation to help you make yours.

BTW- Even if you do find something supporting whatever point you're trying to make, it won't change the fact that Israel has clearly been steadily reducing "Palestinian" territory since the partition of 1947. I have no idea why you've fixated on 1970 and 1975, but whatever floats your boat. :shrug:

And if my suspicion is correct, it ruins the illusion that palestinian territories (defined by who is actually in control of the land) have been steadily shrinking since 1947.

If you choose to ignore that the 1947 partition that created Israel specifically set aside that land for the Arabs/Palestinians to rule themselves, I suppose you might be right about it being an "illusion". :shake:

IMO, that's akin to saying the Patriots won the last Super Bowl, if you just arbitrarily ignore the first score by the Giants.

If the UN partition plan is a legitimate basis for the state of Israel (as the Israelis claim), it's also a legitimate basis for the "Arab State" also set out in that document. As Israel is the entity that has been ignoring that provision and reducing the territory set aside through the years... :shrug:

Looking back, it seems clear to me that I'm more than willing to accept the fault of the Palestinians for the current situation in that part of the world. However, as it's becoming clear you won't accept any information that might show Israel in even the slightest negative light, or concede that Israel might also bear some responsibility for the problem, I don't have much else to say to you on the subject.

patteeu

03-02-2008, 02:30 PM

Well, if you want to see it, go find it. I feel I've made my point, and feel no obligation to help you make yours.

BTW- Even if you do find something supporting whatever point you're trying to make, it won't change the fact that Israel has clearly been steadily reducing "Palestinian" territory since the partition of 1947. I have no idea why you've fixated on 1970 and 1975, but whatever floats your boat. :shrug:

If you choose to ignore that the 1947 partition that created Israel specifically set aside that land for the Arabs/Palestinians to rule themselves, I suppose you might be right about it being an "illusion". :shake:

IMO, that's akin to saying the Patriots won the last Super Bowl, if you just arbitrarily ignore the first score by the Giants.

If the UN partition plan is a legitimate basis for the state of Israel (as the Israelis claim), it's also a legitimate basis for the "Arab State" also set out in that document. As Israel is the entity that has been ignoring that provision and reducing the territory set aside through the years... :shrug:

Looking back, it seems clear to me that I'm more than willing to accept the fault of the Palestinians for the current situation in that part of the world. However, as it's becoming clear you won't accept any information that might show Israel in even the slightest negative light, or concede that Israel might also bear some responsibility for the problem, I don't have much else to say to you on the subject.

I don't know why you find this so hard to understand. :shrug:

This isn't about who is more willing to be fair to both sides in the Israeli/palestinian conflict. This is about unsourced, underexplained propaganda and how willing we are to uncritically accept it. On that count, you appear to be well ahead of me.

The reason I'm fixated on 1970 and 1975 is because they are points in time that follow significant military clashes between Israel and it's neighbors but are far enough removed for the dust to have settled. My contention is that immediately following the 1967 war, Israel controlled the entire West Bank, all of Gaza, and the Sinai Penninsula. In an apples to apples comparison map, I believe those regions would all be completely white in the early years after the wars of 1969 and 1973 because, as you've helped me determine, the maps in the OP show territorial control (not places where palestinians are allowed to live, as you've tried to suggest). But if such a map had been included, it would have become an obstacle between people who looked at the map and the conclusion that you have happily drawn (i.e. that palestinian territory has been steadly shrinking since 1947). The truth, I believe, is that palestinian territory shrank to zero in 1967 and since that time Israel has returned the Sinai to Egypt and has relinquished control over significant portions of both Gaza and the West Bank. That's not steady decline, but a palestinian propagandist would prefer that people take away something closer to your conclusion from this incomplete graphical history.

I think there are plenty of people out there trying to show Israel in the worst possible light without your or my help. I'm interested in the truth here. The ambiguity in the picture in the OP obscures the truth and, IMO, tends to give an impression that is biased against Israel. You don't seem to mind.

Adept Havelock

03-02-2008, 02:49 PM

I don't know why you find this so hard to understand. :shrug:

I don't have trouble understanding it. I understand quite well.

Again, you ignore the simple fact that this land was given to the Palestinians in 1947 at the same time the other land was given to Israel.

If you steal a little from me in 1949, then you steal everything else from me (and quite a bit from my neighbors) in 1967, why should I be grateful you toss back a few crumbs once in a while after the 1970's? This, considering both you and I have a document that states what we both are supposed to have, but you have arbitrarily decided that only the provision applying to you is legitimate.

I should be grateful you are giving back what is rightfully mine and my neighbors in the first place? :rolleyes:

That is precisely what you are suggesting, and I simply don't buy it. It is absurd.

BTW, as the Sinai was not part of the 1947 UN Partition, any alleged "sacrifice" of that territory is only returning stolen property to its rightful owner, Egypt. The "relinquishing" of Gaza and parts of the West Bank is nothing more than an extremely belated and (at best) partial compliance with the terms of the 1947 partition.

Giving back what one stole because of pressure generated by world opinion is hardly the noble exercise you are attempting to paint it as, IMO. Apparently you find it a more selfless act than I do.

patteeu

03-03-2008, 05:44 AM

I don't have trouble understanding it. I understand quite well.

Again, you ignore the simple fact that this land was given to the Palestinians in 1947 at the same time the other land was given to Israel.

If you steal a little from me in 1949, then you steal everything else from me (and quite a bit from my neighbors) in 1967, why should I be grateful you toss back a few crumbs once in a while after the 1970's? This, considering both you and I have a document that states what we both are supposed to have, but you have arbitrarily decided that only the provision applying to you is legitimate.

I should be grateful you are giving back what is rightfully mine and my neighbors in the first place? :rolleyes:

That is precisely what you are suggesting, and I simply don't buy it. It is absurd.

BTW, as the Sinai was not part of the 1947 UN Partition, any alleged "sacrifice" of that territory is only returning stolen property to its rightful owner, Egypt. The "relinquishing" of Gaza and parts of the West Bank is nothing more than an extremely belated and (at best) partial compliance with the terms of the 1947 partition.

Giving back what one stole because of pressure generated by world opinion is hardly the noble exercise you are attempting to paint it as, IMO. Apparently you find it a more selfless act than I do.

WTF? Are you palestinian or something? Why are you so defensive?

I'm not taking either side here. I'm not even trying to figure out how we should characterize what has happened in the ME over the better part of the past century. I was just trying to understand what the picture represents, why it was created in the way it was, why it comes without a legend, and why it shows up on a Jewish hate site. I think I've figured it out even if you haven't.

Far from ignoring the 1947 partition plan, and the fact that Israel "stole everything else" in 1967 (to use your words), I'm the one who was making that point, albeit without the anti-Israeli spin. Even though you, from your apparent pro-palestinian perspective, diminish what has gone on since then as "toss[ing] back a few crumbs", it is nonetheless the opposite of what the pictures represents (i.e. that palestinian territory has been "steadily reduced", to again borrow your words).

And btw, I didn't say anything about Sinai being a part of the 1947 partition or about it having anything to do with the palestinians. I said it would be white in any 1970 picture, which it would have been because it was under the control of Israel at that time.